We should spend more on health care, not less

Everyone is talking about controlling the rising cost of health care, but is that really such a good idea? When other sectors of the economy grow it's considered good news. We Americans spend more on our clothes, more on our cars and more on our homes than most people around the world. Why shouldn't we spend more on health care? We're not like other countries, well not yet anyway.

We do spend more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world. In 2007 we spent $2.26 trillion, that comes to $7,439 per person. Why do we spend so much? Is it because our health care system is broke like the mainstream media tells us, or could there be other reasons?

The United States is a leader in medical innovation. In 2004, the health care industry spent three times as much as Europe per capita on biomedical research. [....]

In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world's biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. [....]

The top five U.S. hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. Between 1975 and 2008, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. [....]

The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.

Reminds me of the old saying: "You get what you pay for."

What would the rest of the world do without American research and innovation? The socialized health care systems in Europe are not stepping up to the plate. And why would they? New medical procedures and drugs are expensive. And as we all know the main concern of government run health care is controlling costs.

A Japanese millionaire may live modestly in a small house and drive a small car, but not us. We drive the biggest car and live in the biggest house we can afford. And guess what, all this greed and extravagance is what makes our economy the envy of the world and keeps everyone employed.

Why should health care be any different? It's almost one fifth of a vibrant American economy. At least it was a vibrant economy until Barney Frank and his cohorts started screwing with the banking system, forcing them to make sub-prime loans.

In November of 2008 a government report showed that for the preceding 12 months the health care sector of the economy created 350,000 jobs while the non health care private sector lost 1.7 million jobs. The health care industry in America is one of the bright spots in an otherwise depressed economy. Why would we want to turn over a part of our economy where we are clearly a world leader to a bunch of government bureaucrats?

We baby boomers are not like our parents, retirement is the beginning of a new exciting life. And we need our health to enjoy this new phase of our life. We didn't sign up to go quietly into the night. And if grandma is 100 years old and full of spirit, she's going to get that pacemaker no matter what Obama says.

The progressives in Washington have a different vision of America. To get an idea of their way of thinking you may want to rent a copy of Logan's Run.

When the government takes over health care -- which Obama said is the ultimate goal -- and starts controlling cost and denying lifesaving treatments because of the cost, the damage to our personal health is almost a side issue. The real disaster will be the economic contraction in one fifth of our economy as government control replaces the free market system.

Everyone is talking about controlling the rising cost of health care, but is that really such a good idea? When other sectors of the economy grow it's considered good news. We Americans spend more on our clothes, more on our cars and more on our homes than most people around the world. Why shouldn't we spend more on health care? We're not like other countries, well not yet anyway.

We do spend more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world. In 2007 we spent $2.26 trillion, that comes to $7,439 per person. Why do we spend so much? Is it because our health care system is broke like the mainstream media tells us, or could there be other reasons?

The United States is a leader in medical innovation. In 2004, the health care industry spent three times as much as Europe per capita on biomedical research. [....]

In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world's biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. [....]

The top five U.S. hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. Between 1975 and 2008, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. [....]

The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.

Reminds me of the old saying: "You get what you pay for."

What would the rest of the world do without American research and innovation? The socialized health care systems in Europe are not stepping up to the plate. And why would they? New medical procedures and drugs are expensive. And as we all know the main concern of government run health care is controlling costs.

A Japanese millionaire may live modestly in a small house and drive a small car, but not us. We drive the biggest car and live in the biggest house we can afford. And guess what, all this greed and extravagance is what makes our economy the envy of the world and keeps everyone employed.

Why should health care be any different? It's almost one fifth of a vibrant American economy. At least it was a vibrant economy until Barney Frank and his cohorts started screwing with the banking system, forcing them to make sub-prime loans.

In November of 2008 a government report showed that for the preceding 12 months the health care sector of the economy created 350,000 jobs while the non health care private sector lost 1.7 million jobs. The health care industry in America is one of the bright spots in an otherwise depressed economy. Why would we want to turn over a part of our economy where we are clearly a world leader to a bunch of government bureaucrats?

We baby boomers are not like our parents, retirement is the beginning of a new exciting life. And we need our health to enjoy this new phase of our life. We didn't sign up to go quietly into the night. And if grandma is 100 years old and full of spirit, she's going to get that pacemaker no matter what Obama says.

The progressives in Washington have a different vision of America. To get an idea of their way of thinking you may want to rent a copy of Logan's Run.

When the government takes over health care -- which Obama said is the ultimate goal -- and starts controlling cost and denying lifesaving treatments because of the cost, the damage to our personal health is almost a side issue. The real disaster will be the economic contraction in one fifth of our economy as government control replaces the free market system.